[bb88]

> (Also, honestly, isn't a single instance of knowing solicitation of a minor enough?)

Technically, it puts some of the blame on the underage girl, because she then becomes a "prostitute". Hence, she was at least half to blame. Hell, he could even have said: "I didn't know she was underage..." And a lot of guys would believe him.

The fact that she was trafficked instead completely changes the issue. She was never a "prostitute", and he was a bigger sleazeball than we realized.

[loeg]

I vehemently disagree with your stated opinion that a 14-year old girl who is statutorily raped by a man in his 50s is "at least half to blame" about anything.

[bb88]

It wasn't my opinion. It's what the charges mean.

If it was child abuse, they would have charged him with abuse. They basically called her a "prostitute" from the charges suggesting that she was at least partly to blame.